The short
answer is, yes. However, like almost all of the answers I give on this blog it
depends on several factors. An officer in Missouri can leave his jurisdiction
and still act as a police officer only while in fresh pursuit.

The
Missouri statute that extends the officer’s jurisdiction while in fresh pursuit
is very restrictive. If properly challenged it requires the prosecutor to show
the facts necessary to meet the fresh pursuit doctrine or there may be some
problems with any evidence obtained outside the jurisdiction.

The
elements the prosecutor must show are:

1.
Fresh pursuit was initiated inside the officer’s
jurisdiction.

2. The officer witnessed a criminal act inside the
jurisdiction. (This can be as minor as a speeding violation).

3. The accused must be attempting to escape or at least
have knowledge of pursuit. (I believe the accused has to still be in the
jurisdiction when this knowledge is conveyed, but this specific question hasn’t
been challenged yet).

4.
The officer must pursue without undue delay.

5.
The pursuit must be continuous and uninterrupted.

6.
There must be a relation in time between the alleged
criminal act inside the jurisdiction, beginning of the pursuit and apprehension
of the accused.

Some
criminal charges are often, or always, based on evidence obtained after a
traffic stop such as DWI, drug possession, drug paraphernalia, driving while
suspended, etc. If an officer conducted a stop outside his jurisdiction resulting
in these types of charges a criminal defense attorney would probably file a
motion to suppress any evidence obtained after the traffic stop. So, tell your
attorney if you believe the officer stopped you outside his jurisdiction. This
information could be very important and it’s unlikely the officer would write
this information in his report, so you need to tell your attorney about it.

A violation
of the fresh pursuit doctrine only invalidates evidence obtained after the officer
leaves his jurisdiction. Evidence obtained by the officer while still in his
jurisdiction such as speeding could still be admissible in court. Therefore, an
officer could pursue someone outside his jurisdiction and simply write a
speeding ticket as long as the officer witnessed the defendant speeding inside
the jurisdiction. This is probably frowned upon by the officer’s supervisors so
it doesn’t happen very often.

Let’s
look at my favorite example of a DWI stop by a Kansas City, Missouri police
officer. Here the officer is following a car that he sees weaving between lanes
heading east nearing the city limits. The officer continues watching and
following the car and just after passing over the city limits of Kansas City he
turns on his roof lights and stops the offending driver. He then conducts a DWI
investigation which, as it often does, ends with the arrest the offending
driver for DWI. The officer then searches the suspect’s car and finds illegal
drugs and paraphernalia. In this case, the evidence of the DWI, drug possession
and paraphernalia charges may be suppressed due to an improper search. However,
the traffic charge of weaving may well be valid as the evidence of this offense was obtained inside the jurisdiction and would be admissible.

I’ve heard
this question several times over the years. I think this may be another myth
perpetuated by Hollywood. Just because you did not receive the Miranda Warnings
does not mean that the criminal case against you must be dismissed based on
that fact alone. However, there may be issues in the case against you that an
attorney can use based on this fact which could lead to some evidence being
barred from use at trial. If enough, or the right parts, of the evidence is
barred then this could lead to a dismissal of some or all of the criminal
charges.

In a brief
nutshell, the Miranda Warning is only necessary if: 1. you are arrested, 2. the
police question you, and 3. the government wants to use what you say as a
result of those questions against you. If any of these factors are missing then
the lack of a Miranda Warning may not matter.

During a
DWI stop or other criminal arrest/investigation there are times when you may be
under arrest and must have the Miranda Warning read to you before a solicited
statement could be used against you. And, there are other times that it isn’t
necessary.

Let’s use
my favorite example of a DWI stop here in good ole Kansas City, Missouri. A
Kansas City police officer stops you for a traffic violation. When the officer
walks up to your window he (I’m going to use the pronoun he but the officer
could be a he or a she) asks if you know why he stopped you. An answer to this
question could be used against you. The courts believe that at this time you
may not be under arrest. Therefore, no Miranda Warning is necessary here.

We’ll keep
going with the example above. Let’s say that the officer decides to put you
through the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. These are the three tests that
the NHTSA endorses for officers to use in order to show probable cause for a
DWI arrest. (I’ll talk about these tests in another post later). After these
tests the officer places you under arrest for DWI. Now, even the courts believe
you are under arrest. But, when the officer helps you into the back seat of his
car you typically still haven’t received the Miranda Warning. If at this point
the officer asks you questions the answers may not be useable in court.
However, let’s say you get scared and suddenly blurt out that you are sorry you
are so drunk. Since this statement was not solicited by the officer it could be
used against you.

Back at the
station after the above DWI arrest example the officer should read you a list
of questions about where you’ve been, what you’ve eaten, and what you’ve had to
drink, etc. The very first part of this questionnaire is a list of the Miranda
Warnings that the officer is required to read to you. At this point all the
stars align and we have all three elements above; arrest, questions and (unfortunately)
answers.

Considering
all of the above, the short answer to the title of this post is; maybe. A
criminal charge might be dismissed due to a lack of the Miranda Warning being
given but only as a small part of the complicated whole. This is why you hire a
lawyer to take a deep and long look at the case against you. Like I’ve said
before on this site; you don’t have to hire me, but hire the best lawyer you
can afford. This gives you the best shot at protecting your rights in a
criminal case.

This is a
question I don’t hear much from people. I’m surprised by this. Let’s take a DWI
arrest as an example. People will ask if they should blow in the breathalyzer
machine or refuse but not think twice about everything they said leading up to
that moment. It’s quite possible that by the time you are blowing into a
machine the damage may already be done.

If someone
is stopped by the police either for a traffic violation or at a checkpoint one
of the first questions an officer asks is whether you’ve been drinking. What’s
the answer? You could say the same thing almost everyone does, “yes, I’ve had 2
drinks.” I guess people think that the officer will smell the alcohol so I have
to admit to it but let’s minimize it by saying only two. This response is a
cliché at this point. I’d say maybe 7 or 8 out of ten DWI reports I read lists
some form of the this response by the arrested person. Notice I say arrested
person. This response does not help you, it only helps the police. You could
try and deny drinking but lying to police can be used against you as well. So,
the correct answer is no answer. If you aren’t going to slur your words then
you could say, “I’m not answering any questions.” I’m not sure this is entirely
safe either. The best response may simply be silence. The police may later try
and claim that you aren’t responding properly to their questions. However, you
don’t have to respond to questions that can be used against you. You have
constitutional rights and you should never give them up for free.

In the
above example the officer may also ask where you are going or where you came
from. Again, answering will only help the police officer. The officer is asking
these questions to try and catch you doing something illegal, not to start a
new friendship. He or she may be trying to hear whether your speech is slurred
and also when you talk you expel breath at a higher rate which makes it easier
to smell alcohol on your breath. See how they do this? Tricky isn’t it?

Now, let’s
assume you’ve been arrested for DWI. Let’s face it, if you smell like alcohol
these days you are quite probably going to be arrested. I’ve seen quite a few
videos of people who were arrested for DWI who did quite well on the
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST). I’ve even had a case where the
officers are talking to each other on camera saying the soon to be arrested
person doesn’t look, act or smell drunk and they then step out of the police
car and immediately arrest him. (Oops, I just digressed into story time. Sorry
about that).

After you
are arrested the police take you to the station or maybe a nice truck or
trailer in a parking lot. This is where the breath test machine likely resides.
Here they have more questions for you. They may say these questions are just a
form they have to fill out. Actually these are questions included in the
Alcohol Influence Report they have been working on since they first laid eyes
on you. These questions were created in order for you to admit to all the
elements of Driving While Intoxicated wrapped up in a nice little package for
the police. You don’t have to answer these questions. Almost everyone does. The
officer will act like it is just another government form that has to be completed.
This is true; he has to complete the form. You don’t have to complete the form
or answer these questions and you should not. Again, no answer just like above.
I’ll digress into story time again and say that a report I once read listed
some very creative responses from the arrestee on this form. While certainly entertaining,
it wasn’t the best way to go.

To sum up,
you don’t have to (and should not) answer questions that might be used against
you even if the question and answer sounds innocent. You have a right to remain
silent and you should use it.

If you are charged with DWI/DUI for the first time ever in Missouri hire an attorney as quickly as possible. I know this sounds self serving but it is for your own good. There are two cases occurring simultaneously around a charge for DWI, the criminal case where the state claims that you committed the crime of Driving While Intoxicated and the civil administrative case that involves your ability to drive in Missouri. A DWI/DUI can automatically suspend your license without regard to what may occur in the criminal case. Such a suspension happens quickly and often before you ever appear in court on the criminal case. This is why you need to hire a lawyer quickly.

If you are charged with Driving While Intoxicated due to alcohol and you voluntarily gave a valid breath or blood sample you will only have 15 days to file a request for hearing to contest the administrative suspension of your license. During that first 15 days you should continue to be legally allowed to drive if you are otherwise eligible. If you have not made a valid request for a hearing to contest your administrative suspension within that 15 day window then your license will automatically be suspended for 90 days and you will not be able to contest the suspension. If you have made a valid request for the administrative hearing on your license suspension then your ability to drive should continue until after the hearing has occurred. Again, this happens only if you are otherwise eligible.

If the arresting officer claims that you refused to give a valid breath or blood sample then you may be looking at a 1 year suspension of your license. In this case you must file a civil law suit in the county where you were arrested. This suit is filed against the Missouri Department of Revenue and requests that the court order the Department to reinstate your license. You have 30 days to file this suit but just like above you only have a temporary 15 day permit to drive after being arrested for DWI/DUI. Therefore, if you don’t file this suit within 15 days of being arrested then you would not be legally allowed to drive unless or until something else happens to get that privilege back. An attorney may be able to get you a continued temporary permit to drive as part of this civil suit that may last until the final hearing on this case occurs.

If you are suspended for one of the reasons above then at some point you may be eligible for some form of limited privilege to drive. This topic will likely be covered more later in this blog. This is something to discuss with your attorney if you find yourself being administratively suspended for DWI/DUI.

*I realize after re-reading this post that it is very dry. This is an unfortunate byproduct of writing about legal issues. Dry begets dry.

This blog is for informational and educational purposes only. The information herein is not a substitute for proper legal representation. By reading this site, commenting or submitting questions you accept that no attorney-client relationship has been created. If you have a legal issue then please seek competent legal representation. Please always remember, you don't have to hire me but hire the best attorney you can afford. Please also read the following disclaimer suggested by the Missouri Bar Association:

“The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.”

The contents of this website are copyrighted and any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.